it would be better then everyone getting PMs from our favorite overseas marine

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPSAmirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego. Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

Brekkie wrote:It also specifically endorses Monotheism, which almost half the world's population doesn't subscribe to.And those things were artificially inserted very recently, less than a single lifespan ago. The whole "this is a Christian nation" thing has no basis in history, it is purely revisionism as a backlash against rising secularism.

So yes, I do consider those things rather extreme. Not that they are really a big deal by themselves, but they are indicators of extremist sentiment.

Shoju wrote:Actually, the use of the word God, when given a captial "G" to and used as a proper noun, is typically only used to reference the Judeo-Christian God, of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim faiths, and it's a little sketchy on Islam, since they normally reference him as "Allah", even though Allah and God are translations of the same word.

That leaves out some pretty "popular" religions throughout society.

Well to be clear, so that my position isn't being improperly framed (as it looks like it is), I'm not particularly in favor of those slogans. I certainly wouldn't be in favor of them being added now if I was given the choice.

However, there's some significant inaccuracies in some of that. First, that slogan has been on coins for about 150 years. Yes, "under God" was a recent addition to the pledge, some 55 years ago, but that's hardly the whole picture.

God is frequently capitalized when referring to a specific diety. In fact I'm currently reading The Omen Machine (fantasy fiction) which capitalizes any reference to that world's "god", even when the reference is merely a pronoun like He or His.

I wasn't around in the mid 1800's, but I'm skeptical that that sort of reference to God was typical among any of the three religions you mentioned, in fact I think each would use a different term. It doesn't seem to be a particularly great fit for any of them.

I think those are pretty vague open ended slogans really. I mean you can take it to mean really whatever you want, though I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it's endorsing monotheism to the exclusion of other religions (I'm not even sure Christianity is properly classified as monotheistic, but that's an entirely different topic). Certainly they endorse the notion of a higher power, but it's really hard to argue that that notion is not part of our founding. That the basis for many laws of man don't have such origins. That it wasn't a very significant part of our culture, or even isn't today.

They aren't proselytizing (which is what I think would be required to balance out that image of extremism) they are merely slogans that reference a concept long accepted in our government and very popular in our culture. While I don't really think the government ought to be using them, the notion that they are somehow extreme seems utterly silly to me.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves

AHMAGHERD!! DEM BLESSINGS DHEY BHURN!!

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sheesh... can't even get TWO SENTENCES into a political document without "Righty" throwing around his "GOD" crap...

Brekkie wrote:Living in fundamentalist Muslim countries really opened my eyes about America. We act so horrified by Islamic extremism, but yet we do some of the exact same things and hold some of the exact same attitudes. Yet that is somehow OK because it's the "right" religion. Screw that.

Well Said, and I would love to hear about it in another thread even. I'm a "religion nut", not a "religious nut" so to speak, and I've been fascinated by fundamentalist cultures.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves

AHMAGHERD!! DEM BLESSINGS DHEY BHURN!!

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sheesh... can't even get TWO SENTENCES into a political document without "Righty" throwing around his "GOD" crap...

1) Blessings aren't exclusively religious.2) Nature's God covers any religion/group that has a god of nature (athiests being excluded by definition.)3) Creator covering any religion/group that believes in a creator.

None of those seem right wing to me. Then again neither does "In God We Trust." I suppose it should also be noted with US money, that phrase is in all caps, so you can't legitimately claim it is God as opposed to god.

That all being said, perhaps it was being directed towards Christianity when the decision was made to include those words, but as with any document, the true meaning tends to get lost over time.

Fridmarr wrote:I wasn't around in the mid 1800's, but I'm skeptical that that sort of reference to God was typical among any of the three religions you mentioned, in fact I think each would use a different term. It doesn't seem to be a particularly great fit for any of them.

God, is the literal English translation of names given to "God" in the Holy Bible. While I'm not going to go searching to find out what he has been called forever, I can point out that since 1611, when the "Official" King James Translation of the bible was set forth, The term God was used in place of Jehovah / Yahweh in the Bible.

There is some debate that Judaeism has been replacing "God's Name" with "The Lord", or with "God" for even longer than that, since they feel that his name is too holy, too sacred, too important, to speak regularly.

Arabic Speaking Muslims are more apt to refer to "him" as Allah which, like I posted earlier, is the literal Arabic word for God. Many English Speaking Muslims will still reference him as Allah, but will also refer to him as God as well. If need be, I can track down sources on this.

Fridmarr wrote:I think those are pretty vague open ended slogans really. I mean you can take it to mean really whatever you want, though I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it's endorsing monotheism to the exclusion of other religions (I'm not even sure Christianity is properly classified as monotheistic, but that's an entirely different topic). Certainly they endorse the notion of a higher power, but it's really hard to argue that that notion is not part of our founding. That the basis for many laws of man don't have such origins. That it wasn't a very significant part of our culture, or even isn't today.

Side RantChristianity falls under monotheism, even if they believe in "God the Father" "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit", because they believe that each incarnation is just that, an incarnation of the same singular omniscient, omnipresent entity. End Side Rant

You can claim that it doesn't "reference the Christian God" but History unfortunately does not agree with you:

The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, as part of a campaign initiated by eleven northern Protestant Christian denominations in a letter dated November 13, 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognising "Almighty God in some form in our coins."[7] At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War.[8] According to Brian Burrell, the actual wording of the motto was inspired by a Union Civil War unit's company motto.[9][10]

Fridmarr wrote:They aren't proselytizing (which is what I think would be required to balance out that image of extremism) they are merely slogans that reference a concept long accepted in our government and very popular in our culture. While I don't really think the government ought to be using them, the notion that they are somehow extreme seems utterly silly to me.

In a society such as what existed in the 1860's, no. Not Extreme. IN a society such as what existed in the 1950's, probably not. In a society like what we have today, 62 years later, It may not be extreme yet, but culture polls would suggest that the United States is far less "Christian" than it was previously.

EDIT

Sagara wrote:I suppose it should also be noted with US money, that phrase is in all caps, so you can't legitimately claim it is God as opposed to god.

Not Always True. When the slogan was first set forth, it wasn't always in all caps.

This is the reverse of the Morgan Silver Dollar. A coin with which, I am very familiar with, as it comprises most of the numismatic knowledge that I have accumulated. As you can see, Clearly, The I in "In", and the G in "God" were the only capital letters placed in the phrase. This coin is an 1895, but the Morgan Silver Dollar Design was implemented in 1878, and ran until 1921 (with a break from 1904 to 1921) with no change in design.

While pursuing this fun and interesting sideline, I'd like to note that the New Zealand national anthem mentions God 11 times (capitalised). However, it's not the Jewish or Christian god or even a real deity - it's some theoretical "God of Nations".

As of 2006, 42% of New Zealanders listed "no religion" or "not stated" for their religion. We are a godless lot down here.

Shoju wrote:God, is the literal English translation of names given to "God" in the Holy Bible. While I'm not going to go searching to find out what he has been called forever, I can point out that since 1611, when the "Official" King James Translation of the bible was set forth, The term God was used in place of Jehovah / Yahweh in the Bible.

There is some debate that Judaeism has been replacing "God's Name" with "The Lord", or with "God" for even longer than that, since they feel that his name is too holy, too sacred, too important, to speak regularly.

Arabic Speaking Muslims are more apt to refer to "him" as Allah which, like I posted earlier, is the literal Arabic word for God. Many English Speaking Muslims will still reference him as Allah, but will also refer to him as God as well. If need be, I can track down sources on this.

What I mean is, I don't think the phrase "in God we trust" was ever some popular religious phrase among those three religions. I'm not saying the word God doesn't apply, but if you wanted to make an overtly specific slogan, it's rather easy to do and I don't think that would qualify.

Shoju wrote:You can claim that it doesn't "reference the Christian God" but History unfortunately does not agree with you:

How do you figure that? Are you really suggesting that the only way this phrase could be remotely neutral is if it was sponsored by aethists? That seems rather silly doesn't it?

Shoju wrote:In a society such as what existed in the 1860's, no. Not Extreme. IN a society such as what existed in the 1950's, probably not. In a society like what we have today, 62 years later, It may not be extreme yet, but culture polls would suggest that the United States is far less "Christian" than it was previously.

The cultural aspect is but one aspect, that said "less Christian than it was previously" hardly suggests extremism. Again, I said that I (and probably "we" as a nation)wouldn't be in favor of adding these phrases today, but that hardly classifies them as extreme. Even aside from the cultural reference which is still pretty strong, it's hard to ignore the historical references to the notion of God. We probably wouldn't use Anno Domini or Before Christ or In the year of our Lord today either (and at some point we probably won't) but they aren't extreme despite being exclusively Christian.

Skye1013 wrote:I suppose it should also be noted with US money, that phrase is in all caps, so you can't legitimately claim it is God as opposed to god.

Not Always True. When the slogan was first set forth, it wasn't always in all caps.

This is the reverse of the Morgan Silver Dollar. A coin with which, I am very familiar with, as it comprises most of the numismatic knowledge that I have accumulated. As you can see, Clearly, The I in "In", and the G in "God" were the only capital letters placed in the phrase. This coin is an 1895, but the Morgan Silver Dollar Design was implemented in 1878, and ran until 1921 (with a break from 1904 to 1921) with no change in design.

Point... however, you are referencing an early 1900s coin. When was the last time it was printed/minted like that? Has it been done so recently? Just because it happened at one time, doesn't mean it's still ongoing. Things change and if it hasn't been done so recently, then I believe my argument still stands.

Fridmarr wrote:What I mean is, I don't think the phrase "in God we trust" was ever some popular religious phrase among those three religions. I'm not saying the word God doesn't apply, but if you wanted to make an overtly specific slogan, it's rather easy to do and I don't think that would qualify.

And like I posted, the origination of the phrase in God we Trust was the 4th stanza of the Star Spangled Banner, which read slightly different, and was indeed a reference to the "Christian God".

The fourth Stanza of The Star Spangled Banner is in turn a reference to Psalms Chapter 146 Verse 3.

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Because if you don't put your trust in princes or in the son of man, who do you put your trust in? Oh Right. They put their trust in God.

Fridmarr wrote:

Shoju wrote:You can claim that it doesn't "reference the Christian God" but History unfortunately does not agree with you:

How do you figure that? Are you really suggesting that the only way this phrase could be remotely neutral is if it was sponsored by aethists? That seems rather silly doesn't it?

Did you not read a damn thing I posted? I'm saying it's not neutral, because the whole DRIVE to put it on the currency was headed by a group of PROTESTANT Pastors. They weren't doing it to reference "some" God, or "Someone else's God", or "For all 'Gods'". They did it to reference THEIR ALMIGHTY GOD. I fail to see how that can even be remotely portrayed as "neutral".

Fridmarr wrote:The cultural aspect is but one aspect, that said "less Christian than it was previously" hardly suggests extremism. Again, I said that I (and probably "we" as a nation)wouldn't be in favor of adding these phrases today, but that hardly classifies them as extreme. Even aside from the cultural reference which is still pretty strong, it's hard to ignore the historical references to the notion of God. We probably wouldn't use Anno Domini or Before Christ or In the year of our Lord today either (and at some point we probably won't) but they aren't extreme despite being exclusively Christian.

And I'm saying it might not be considered "Extreme" right now, but it is more "extreme" as a stance, or point NOW Than it was 148 years ago when it was done, or even 57 years ago when it was added to paper currency and the Pledge of Allegiance. It is endorsement of religion, which can be seen as an extreme point to take, when compared with not endorsing any religions, or specifically endorsing atheism.

Skye1013 wrote:Point... however, you are referencing an early 1900s coin. When was the last time it was printed/minted like that? Has it been done so recently? Just because it happened at one time, doesn't mean it's still ongoing. Things change and if it hasn't been done so recently, then I believe my argument still stands.

[nitpick on]Actually, I'm referencing a late 1800's coin. A coin that was minted for 27 years. From 1878 to 1904, and then again in 1921. One of the most famous coins (and widely used) in the history of American Currency and Coinage. [/nitpick off]

Your argument would stand if there had been a law, decree, referendum or "something" that happened that made them change the motto from "In God we trust" to "In god we trust" But that isn't the case. The reason that motto is more often than not minted in all caps on coinage comes from the way that the dies are made. This is done in an attempt to ensure that the detail features of the coin can stand up to the rigors of circulation for a longer period of time. This design choice was not "religious" in anyway, it was a functional design choice, due to the fact that when using capital letters, they are able to build details in the coin which have wider dimensions, therefore using more metal, and thereby holding up in circulation longer.

IT was kept in all caps on paper currency so that there was a unified usage in type. No law, referendum, or choice has been made to change the Official Motto's wording, and grammar from "In God we trust".

Functional design choices for currency don't change that our currency carries "In God we trust" because of a protestant movement starting in 1861 to put a reference to "the Almighty God" of their church on the coin, or that it was influenced (suggested I will admit) to come from the 4th Stanza of our National Anthem, as a further integration of patriotism from a Patriotic piece (the National Anthem) to a National Symbol (Currency).

This foray into the numismatic arts is possibly entertaining on some level, but I am losing the point if it all. Is anyone suggesting that because the initial placement of the word "God" on money was enacted by protestants, that it is their god we must consider when looking at the currency?

I don't think it has to be. I think it's just an homage to the manifest destiny that drove US expansion. And while that was again the same protestant god, I think it has evolved into "we must be favoured by <insert name of deity here> because look how badass we are". Which, while quaintly egocentric, is somewhat endemic to the US psyche, at least when seen from outside.

Koatanga wrote:This foray into the numismatic arts is possibly entertaining on some level, but I am losing the point if it all. Is anyone suggesting that because the initial placement of the word "God" on money was enacted by protestants, that it is their god we must consider when looking at the currency?

A lot of people think that, yes. Especially those who don't espouse to a religion that has "God" as a part of it. Including, but not limited to: Hindu, Buddhists, and Atheists, all of whom live in a country that has language in it's laws set out to preserve and acknowledge their differences. To some of these people, the fact that our Currency, and our Pledge contains these reference is a problem.

For the record, I'm not weighing in on whether or not I think it "Should" or "Shouldn't" Be there. I'm saying "This is why it is there. This is why it is done the way it is."

Koatanga wrote:I don't think it has to be. I think it's just an homage to the manifest destiny that drove US expansion. And while that was again the same protestant god, I think it has evolved into "we must be favoured by <insert name of deity here> because look how badass we are". Which, while quaintly egocentric, is somewhat endemic to the US psyche, at least when seen from outside.

And the problem is, people don't agree with that. People don't agree with the homage, because they don't believe that there is a deity, or at least, not a deity named in such a way.

IT all goes back to the picture that was posted, and the idea that there are extremes. I'm firmly in camp of people who think that the pic is a bit propoganda ish in reason, but has some merit. The Religious Conservative section of the US "political world" is trying to paint the views of the liberal side as being just as extremist in nature, when in actuality, they aren't as extreme as what they would make you believe.

To be completely fair, the Liberals in the US do the same thing to the Conservatives on other issues (Oil drilling, fracking, etc...) so it's a 2 way street. I just don't know enough about those streets to debate them, so I don't. But I'm fairly knowledgable about religion (even if people don't agree with my opinions), and I'm well versed on Numismatics and the related laws, so I can, debate those points.

I agree though, we can probably move on, and back towards the original scope of the thread.

Shoju wrote:Did you not read a damn thing I posted? I'm saying it's not neutral, because the whole DRIVE to put it on the currency was headed by a group of PROTESTANT Pastors. They weren't doing it to reference "some" God, or "Someone else's God", or "For all 'Gods'". They did it to reference THEIR ALMIGHTY GOD. I fail to see how that can even be remotely portrayed as "neutral".

There's no need for caps, bold, and red text (and certainly not all at the same time). To answer your question, yes I read what you wrote. I read a fair bit of what you linked, and your position makes me wonder if you actually read what you linked? If so then I think there's a clear disconnect from our perspectives. You think who advocated for a reference to god in some form appear on our coins matters, I really don't because of the obvious logical fallacy that creates which I pointed out among other things.

However even ignoring that logic problem, the letter itself (which to be fair is the first request, not the only request) asks for a reference to god be placed on a coin not so that people know that we are a christian nation, but so that people know we are not a heathen nation. It states "no citizen" would object to that sort of wording which implies a level of neutrality (though the words suggested are not what we have today). Further, this guy and his group didn't simply walk into the mint and place their slogan on the coin. The idea was deliberated through due process of our government, found to have merit, and the eventual wording was futher deliberated and approved.

Certainly, the reference was to their God from their perspective, but the wording was not specifically to their God so that other citizens could identify with it. After all, the government had ~75 years of experience with the first amendment by then, I'm sure they had an understanding that these words could not represent any one religion and they don't.

I think you and I have different working definitions for the word extreme. To me something that is not extreme, can't be more extreme than something else. I just don't see it that way.

Koatanga wrote:I don't think it has to be. I think it's just an homage to the manifest destiny that drove US expansion

Indeed.

I agree though, we can probably move on, and back towards the original scope of the thread.

Fridmarr wrote:I think you and I have different working definitions for the word extreme. To me something that is not extreme, can't be more extreme than something else. I just don't see it that way.

There's a simple test for extremism: am I doing it, or is it other people?

I am neutral and balanced. They are dangerous bigoted extremists. I have a crucial social message. They are shoving their propaganda down everyone's throats. I uphold my convictions in the face of those who would bully me. They are pigheaded idiots clinically incapable of understanding reason. And so on.

Fridmarr wrote:I think you and I have different working definitions for the word extreme. To me something that is not extreme, can't be more extreme than something else. I just don't see it that way.

I think the problem that you and I have, is that I'm looking at this, and I'm saying that it might not be "extreme" right now, but it is more of an "extremist" stance now than it was before, and you are disagreeing with me. The climate and culture of the US is far more "secular" now than it was 60 years ago during the cold war, 150 years ago during the civil war, and 225+ years ago during the American Revolution, and the beginnings of the country. If you would have been able to take a Gallup pole back then, I would assume that the amount of people that would respond to being "Christian" would be staggeringly higher than what it is now.

So the idea of "God" and "Christianity" used to be a centrist, very middle of the road opinion. But as times have changed, so has the population, our sociological makeup, our religious makeup, which means that so has the centrist values and views of the American Populace.

IN recent years, we have also had major steps taken in our courts, and in our laws, to make sure that there is less of a sponsored religious presence in our society. There has been a further push to ensure that our government isn't pushing religious points of view while also being "our government". You can look at the points that prayer has been removed from public schools to a large degree, and that prayer has been removed from political / governmental meetings. You can see this evidenced in that prayers now happen prior to meetings being called to order.

I'm also trying to look at this without interjecting my own personal views, my own religious views, and the like. From a "Religious / Non - religious" point of view, The idea that there is still language in our government, laws, and politics that seems to sponsor a religion is one end of "an extreme"

That doesn't mean that I'm calling it extremist behavior, or that I'm saying that they are oppressing, but that if you are using a "line model", this is at one end of the line, while the picture shows the middle, and end of a line.

I will agree, (and I've said this before) that the idea, and image is mild propoganda. Extreme is the word that is used that sort of reinforces the propoganda aspect of the image. Extreme isn't the right word, but it is the word that is used, because of the idea, and the thought that it provokes.

A better way to look at it, might be to use wording like "On one end of the spectrum" , or "the contrary view to my perspective". But then the problem with that, is that it doesn't invoke the same ideology (like Passionaro talks about) that they are trying to bring about.

This end of the "spectrum" "The other end of the Spectrum<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Believes that the government believe that the government believes that the government Should continue to use "God" should make no reference to should actively go out of their way in the pledge, and on currency god or gods in pledge or money to be atheistic

It's basically what you are seeing in the picture, but it removes the word extreme, and is more accurate. In American Politics, you would find that the far left of this terrible line chart is the republican idea, and in the middle, you would have the current desire of most of the Democratic problem.

The problem that people have, is that the scale/line chart, goes further than the dem POV, to another POV, and its something that we aren't used to, because we are conditioned that those are the two "extremes" or "Perspectives" in our culture, even though, as we should have at least learned here on this forum, that there is probably even more to the left of this line graph (fundamentalist societies), and there is definitely more to the right side.